Two weeks ago in Washington, Hanan Ashrawi told a crammed hall at the National Press Club something I did not know before, that Obama’s ambassador to Israel, Daniel Shapiro, was now an expert at a quasi-official Israeli security thinktank. Speaking with bitter disdain, the longtime Palestinian negotiator described Shapiro as part of the “revolving door” of Israel lobbyists inside and outside government, who have made sure the US participation in the peace process was biased toward Israel:

They don’t need to lobby; they are decision makers… You’d be surprised that…ex-ambassador Daniel Shapiro, for example, decided to stay in Israel, has joined the Institute for National Security Studies. Which is something that also Dennis joined at one point or another– Dennis Ross. So it’s interchangeable. Either they are influencing policy or they are making policy.

And that’s why American policy was so distorted, because they played a significant role in framing and defining the discourse and perceptions but went beyond that to manipulating the verbal public space, anything related to the peace process. And they generated a narrative based on myths and provided alternative facts. It’s not Kelly Anne who invented alternative facts. We’ve been victims of alternative facts all our lives, they’ve certainly willfully misled public opinion.

As luck would have it, a few days after Ashrawi spoke, Shapiro appeared at the Park Avenue Synagogue in New York on a panel on the “Future of Zionism,” and I paid $25 for the privilege of hearing him. He repeatedly described himself as a Zionist that night:

I, as will emerge in the course of our discussion, am somebody who spent my whole formative years and much of my professional life committed out of Zionist impulses and out of an understanding of what US foreign policy interests are to insure Israel’s security, to help Israel pursue peace with its neighbors. I could never have worked for an administration that was not committed to the same goals…

Nobody has a monopoly on what it means to be a Zionist, nobody has a monopoly on how to express that support for the state of Israel…. It is not just possible, it is definitionally appropriate, to have liberal values and Zionist values intersect very closely with one another. Of course the establishment of the State of Israel was a fulfillment of that centuries-old dream, and that actualization of the self-determination of the Jewish people, that unites Zionists whatever their politics are…

He issued the traditional warning about American Jews needing to defer to Israel on security issues.

[T]there are major risks and threats, and we Zionists in the Diaspora don’t experience them the same way that Israelis do.

Because both conservative and liberal Zionists share a protective feeling toward “this miracle, this gift, this jewel”–

the same impulse of insuring that this miracle, this gift, this jewel that we in our day and age after centuries of exile, get to experience, which is a sovereign state of the Jewish people in the historic homeland of the Jewish people.

And P.S., Ms Ashrawi, Ambassador Shapiro said Palestinians are “not a reliable partner” for Israel.

Shapiro’s frank expression of Zionism made me wonder whether any of us knew this before he went into office.

Shapiro noted his Jewish roots, and his affinity for Israel, in his confirmation hearings. His testimony in May 2011 to Senate Foreign Relations Committee makes it clear that he’s very drawn to Israel, but that attraction has an academic/professional tenor here; he never said anything about his redemptive feelings about the Jewish state, or even that he was Jewish.

Mr. Chairman, my own interaction with Israel has taken many forms over the years, each of which has helped me gain a greater appreciation of the unique experience and perspective of the Israeli people. I first went to Israel at the age of four. My parents, who were academics, took our family there for a six-month sabbatical. It was 1973, and I was there during the Yom Kippur War… I remember, at the same time, our family enjoying many examples of the warmth and generosity of the Israeli people…

I returned to Israel after high school and again during college. In 1988, as the country was reeling from the violence of the first intifada, rocks rained down on the bus I took to Hebrew University and my Israeli classmates intensely debated the meaning of these events for their country’s future.

As a Congressional staffer, I traveled to Israel as the hopes born of the Oslo Accords made peace seem within reach, celebrated the signing of the peace treaty with Jordan, mourned the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin days after he had returned to Israel from Washington, and worked to address the threats posed to our nations by Hamas and Hizballah. As my professional involvement with Israel has deepened, so too has my understanding of Israel’s security needs and its people’s justifiable concerns about Iran’s nuclear weapons program, suicide bombers, missile attacks from Hamas and Hizballah, and the ongoing efforts of some to delegitimize the Jewish state.

But I have also grown more keenly aware of Israel’s deep-rooted strengths and its people’s dreams – manifested in the building of a modern state, the flowering of Jewish culture and democracy, the Start-up Nation, and the unrelenting search for peace.

Notice how he keeps saying the Israeli people’s dreams, as if they’re not his own. Whereas at Park Avenue synagogue he spoke repeatedly about the “Jewish people,” of which he was one. Notice that he says Hamas and Hizballah pose a threat to “our nations.” Really it’s just one nation they threaten: Israel.

I read a number of Shapiro’s speeches as ambassador and while I found many testimonies to Israel’s greatness, I did not find any of the personal Jewish/Zionist declarations that he made in the Park Avenue Synagogue.

This seems to me an issue of transparency. I’m aware that Shapiro backed up President Obama repeatedly in his criticisms of the settlement program (and also in the giant aid package Obama delivered). I’m not saying a Jew can’t be an ambassador to Israel. “[A generation ago] the U.S. State Department had a policy of not sending Jewish diplomats to the top post in Israel,” Ron Kampeas said in 2011 when Shapiro was appointed. “The notion of an ambassador to Israel having a pre-existing affinity with the country, never mind fluency in its native tongue, was unimaginable.

Still I feel a bit snookered. I wish Zionists in public life would emulate Roger Cohen of the Times, and cop to it openly. So the ideology can be contested.

Oh and since Ashrawi commented on the revolving door of the Israel lobby, Shapiro fulfilled that very role, writing an article for Bloomberg saying that “the next war in Gaza is coming.” The article repeatedly characterized Israeli assaults on Gaza in favorable terms– “Israel responds with carefully placed airstrikes” — without a word about the massive civilian killings Israel has committed in the Strip.

Posted In:

137 Responses

“But I have also grown more keenly aware of Israel’s deep-rooted strengths and its people’s dreams – manifested in the building of a modern state, the flowering of Jewish culture and democracy, the Start-up Nation, and the unrelenting search for peace. “SHAPIRO

Does, shapiro know that not all Israelis are Jews .Reading his comments it is hard to believe he does .

Isn’t the word “Israelis” usually used to mean Israeli Jews only? The conflict is generally referred to as being between “Israelis” and “Palestinians” as though these are mutually exclusive categories. It is tacitly understood that the Israeli citizenship of some Palestinians is not to be taken too seriously.

No, the word “Israelis” is not “generally “understood to mean Jewish Israelis only.. except by people who want to perpetuate the conflation of those two categories and– as you seem to be doing here– to deny the full citizenship, rights status, and humanity of the Palestinian citizens of Israel.

It is true that in many Israeli-run opinion polls, the pollsters used to ask just Jewish Israelis– not the 20-plus percent of Palestinian Israelis– and then present the findings as “Israeli opinion”. But they got called out on that conflation a long time ago and these days most of them will note that their findings represent only Jewish Israelis.

@Helena Cobban has clearly not mastered Modern Israeli Hebrew. ישראלי means either Israeli or Israelite in English. In MIH it is quite artificial and wrong-seeming to refer to non-Jewish citizens of the State of Israel with the word Israeli.

Zionists have had 120 years of putting their people, money and influence in positions favourable to the colonization of Palestine. US presidencies are only 8 yrs max. Their people are already being prepared for the next president, Republican or Democrat the Zionist organizations are watching grooming well in advance of anything the American public will be aware of. Covering more angles than any other lobby group would find necessary and gathering the dirt on all possible candidates

The only peaceful way of defeating Zionists and their vile cause is to educate Jewish folk to the fact that they have been used, abused and duped by a tiny minority who lie, cheat, murder and steal. Who loan money specifically to poor Jews at interest, on condition that they now buy land in non-Israeli territories and put themselves and their families at risk on the front lines. The Zionist Movement’s state, then charges them land taxes, rates etc as if they are in Israel, when they’re quite simply not

Jewish folk need to be educated to the fact that the Zionsist Movement/Federation has led them and Israel down the garden path to the point where Israel cannot afford to now adhere to the law under which states are required to withdraw from all Occupied Territories, take all their citizens with them, allow RoR and pay compensations far far beyond the capabilities of the Jewish State

” Jewish folk need……” You may very well believe this is what they need to be educated about but the fact remains that the vast majority of Jews, wether, Brit, German, North African, Persian or American don’t either need nor do they desire too be ‘educated,’ about your list of the negative attributes of Israel and your false narrative of the evils of Zionism.

Im sure we are quite comfortable In building the lands thatbelong to the Jews while providing liberty and full civil rights to any minority groups they live among us.

” … the fact remains that the vast majority of Jews, wether, Brit, German, North African, Persian or American don’t either need nor do they desire too be ‘educated,’ about your list of the negative attributes of Israel…”

Go whine to the Zionist Federation for pushing Israel to be in breach of its legal obligations under International Law.

” … and your false narrative of the evils of Zionism.”

What part is false. You forgot to say.

Is it not true that the Zionist Federation decided in 1897 set up the Jewish COLONIAL Trust in order to specifically colonize Palestine and that they loaned money to specifically poor Jews ( specifically at interest ) on condition that they put themselves on the front lines in Palestine to further the Zionist Colonization process?

Take your time answering

“Im sure we are quite comfortable In building the lands thatbelong to the Jews while providing liberty and full civil rights to any minority groups they live among us.”

Wonderful. Might be best tho for Israelis to stick to living in Israel instead of illegally settling in non-Israeli territories illegally acquired by war by the Jewish state since proclaiming its borders effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948

It may not be transparency, it could be conversion. I get that you don’t experience these emotions when you are in Israel. But for most Jews experiencing a Jewish state is amazing.

I can remember the first time I walked into a crappy restaurant and there was a Jewish sink (two handed cups and towels for netilat yadayim). Or having the time of the 3rd star at bus stops. Or people who have no idea its Christmas while every year my life has to revolve around this holiday I don’t celebrate (do they know its Christmas time at all — nope). And of course the immense pride in seeing a Jewish army.

I can easily see after how years of being in Israel Ambassador Shapiro went from supporting Israel to identifying personally with it. Ambassadors from time immemorial “go native”, start identifying with the country they are posted to. And for Jews in Israel with the incredibly strong pull, I’d say it is much more likely.

You don’t remember the time Menachim Begin and the Irgun slaughtered your family and village. That would not feel so wonderful. But that is the price of your warm feelings, pride, and getting rid of a pesky holiday you dislike. But no need to consider those other so-called “human beings”.

You keep quoting that discussion. Since that discussion MP Shakid has repudiated the interpretation of her her statements that you were asserting was her position publicly multiple times. The facts do the opposite of what you claim.

JeffB, your point is completely irrelevant to the discussion at the link. That revolved entirely around what YOU said. It’s clear you are trying to steer people away from reading that discussion by using an utterly dishonest tactic. Once again you show that your purpose is not to clarify, but to deceive and cover up.

I can understand having that feeling, I’ve had a bit of it myself. It is indeed “amazing” to find a whole country pervaded by the sort of cosy familiarity that in the diaspora is confined to the family context. But for me it was overpowering, TOO MUCH. Jewishness is something I enjoy only in small doses I prefer it to be diluted.. In Israel its negative as well as positive features are elevated to the state level. And there is the uneasy feeling that this is not how things are supposed to be. Dispersion is an essential part of what it means to be a Jew. The religious say simply that it is God’s will. And all this even before raising the question of who pays the price for this amazing feeling.

I get it. Though I’d say dispersion is an essential part of what it once meant to be a Jew. Israel has changed that. Judaism is changing before our eyes. In Israel Judaism becomes part of your life unavoidably the way Christianity is here. A tribal cult not a diaspora minority faith.

I’d agree that Judaism’s negative features get elevated as well. Hopefully as Judaism heals for 1900 years of diaspora and becomes the organic faith of a nation many of those disappear.

I can remember the first time I walked into a crappy restaurant and there was a Jewish sink (two handed cups and towels for netilat yadayim). Or having the time of the 3rd star at bus stops. Or people who have no idea its Christmas while every year my life has to revolve around this holiday I don’t celebrate (do they know its Christmas time at all — nope). And of course the immense pride in seeing a Jewish army.

Remarkable. Already before getting to the last sentence, the author you are quoting appears to be the meanest, the most envious, the most hate-filled and obsessive ISIS member I’ve ever read until now. As for “the immense pride in seeing a Jewish army” it makes your skin crawl, realizing that so much baseness is coming from what is now called a natural-born killer.

At any rate, if this person is suffering so terribly for having to live in this US den of infidels, he should be expelled PDQ to avoid him the indignity of not being able to impose his obscurantist religion on everybody.

Yes it was the title of that book. It means before memory, which is how I was using it above.

It also has a more specific usage. It originated as a legal term in the Statutes of Westminster (1275) meaning a time before legal memory (often taken to be prior to July 6, 1189 when Richard I of England took the throne), “No one is to be given a hearing to claim seisin [feudal ownership of land] by an ancestor of his further back than the time of King Richard, uncle of King Henry, the father of the present king.“. In 1832 the law was changed and the new law is 60 years from the current date. Joan Peters was using the term correctly in her title as in before memory, a history of the Jews through all time (and yes Norman Finkelstein did a good job in refuting some parts of it).

“I can remember the first time I walked into a crappy restaurant and there was a Jewish sink (two handed cups and towels for netilat yadayim)”

Ah yes. Blessed are you, Hashem our God, King of the Universe Who has sanctified us with His commandments, and has commanded us regarding the washing of the hands and who didn’t bother to show up for the Holocaust or any other disaster that befell us

“I can easily see after how years of being in Israel Ambassador Shapiro went from supporting Israel to identifying personally with it. “

Stop with the bullsh*t Jeff baby, Shapiro spent his sophomore year in Israel, then went to Brandeis University where in 1991 he obtained his bachelor’s degree in Near Eastern and Judaic Studies ( Brandeis was a rabid Zionist http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/american-zionism )

I remember your story about the ‘jewish sink’. It doesn’t sound any better the 2nd or 3rd time round either. It sounds pathological actually along with your ‘immense pride’ in seeing state-sanctioned murderers and rapists, what you call a jewish army. You represent to me, what was called by Ms. Hannah as ‘the banality of evil’.

The legacy of Joan Peters and ‘From Time Immemorial’ – Mondoweiss
mondoweiss.net/2015/01/legacy-peters-immemorial
The bizarre chapter of Joan Peters’s contribution to the Middle East debate does not end with her death. Her arguments, both those she adopted from others and those she formulated herself, still constitute a huge portion of the go-to hasbara repertoire. From Time Immemorial is an embarrassment that taints anyone who embraced it as well as those who continue to do so. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/legacy-peters-immemorial/#sthash.inQz3Wal.dpuf

You meant this as a sarcastic slip but it isn’t entirely false. There is a terrific Russian book, The Strange Life of Ivan Osokin where a man gets to repeat his life including mistakes he wanted to avoid and finds that faced with the same situations he would have done the same things. Harper Lee’s expression, “You never really know a man until you understand things from his point of view, until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”. Jews could never understand how or why the Tzar did what he did. It was terrible psychic wound. One of the many gifts Israel has given the Jews is the ability to see the situation not from the vantage point of the oppressed but through the Tzar’s eyes. They are faced with much the same problem the Tzar was and end up finding to their horror that faced with the choices the Tzar had to make they would not have been more moral or kind but rather they would have acted like he did (not exactly the same specifics of course). Of course this is what creates the dissonance since so much of Jewish culture is about seeking justice against oppressors.

There is a process of maturation. Much like children more fairly evaluate their parents when they become one. Rather it is understanding the competing needs of holding and governing territory under all the competing strains. Frustration with the arrogant minority not appreciating or understanding what makes the government possible. It isn’t psychopathology, that’s just cheap rhetoric, and arguably failure to provide realistic solutions is one of the many reasons BDS is rejected. Rather it is moral people weighing the competing interests and choosing the lesser evil to advance the common good.

JeffB is too old to have gone on birthright. He also doesn’t speak Hebrew. If I had made different choices when I was younger… I don’t know if I would have scurried back. It isn’t a viable option. But if my children / grandchildren / great-grandchildren make aliyah I will be happy.

A film produced by a group of Australian journalists has sparked an international outcry against Israel after it explicitly detailed Tel Aviv’s use of torture against Palestinian children.
The film, titled ‘Stone Cold Justice’ documents how Palestinian children, who have been arrested and detained by Israeli forces, are subjected to physical abuse, torture and forced into false confessions and pushed into gathering intelligence on Palestinian activists.

Australia’s foreign minister Julie Bishop has spoken out against Israeli’s use of torture stating that “I am deeply concerned by allegations of the mistreatment of Palestinian children,” Israel’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor has described the human rights abuses documented in the film as “intolerable”. But rights groups have slammed this statement, saying that the Israelis are doing nothing to change Tel Aviv’s policy to torture Palestinian children.

Last year a report by the United Nations International Emergency Children’s Fund or UNICEF concluded that Palestinian children are often targeted in night arrests and raids of their homes, threatened with death and subjected to physical violence, solitary confinement and sexual assault. The film Stone Cold Justice has sparked an international outcry about Israel’s treatment of children in Israeli jails. However, rights groups have criticized Tel Aviv for not doing anything to create a policy that protects Palestinian children against arbitrary arrest and torture.

Precarious Childhood: Arrests of Jerusalemite Children
This film addresses the process of arrest, interrogation, and the policy of house arrest and their effects on children. The film provides accounts of children who were arrested in order to highlight a larger policy of persecution and targeting of Palestinian children in Jerusalem.

Question: when has Hanan Ashwari EVER spoken without disgust and disdain? This is her trademark. She has no interest in a peace treaty with Israel and does not believe be Israel has any right to exist as a Jewish sovereign state. She may believe that Jews can live as some type of protected minority in a sovereign Palestinian state but she’ll be long dead and buried before that becomes even a remote particle of a possibility. She will die choking on bitter tears of she refuses to change anything as she never has I the past. Best of luck to her and her paper thin veneer of civility when it comes to Jews in Israel having sovereignty.

DaBakr: “She may believe that Jews can live as some type of protected minority in a sovereign Palestinian state but she’ll be long dead and buried before that becomes even a remote particle of a possibility.”

I agree. To many Zionists are to much into terrorism and conquest.They need to be reeducated first.

Hanan Ashrawi, as far as I can tell, is one of the most eloquent defenders of her people. I am not Palestinian or Jewish, but when I hear her speak (sadly, never in person, but YouTube is an OK substitute) I am impressed and inspired.

There is something to like about a state stealing territory, dispossessing people, ripping off poorer Jewish families by lying to them and lending them money at interest on condition they endanger themselves in illegal settlements in non-Israeli territories illegally acquired by war?

“She has no interest in a peace treaty with Israel “

While Israel continues to occupy and while it continues to illegally settle occupied territories, ISRAEL is not interested in peace. The Palestinians are not stealing, occupying or illegally settling any Israeli territories. They’ve already agreed to cede 78% of their rightful territories for peace with Israel and are only asking for their legal rights

“and does not believe be Israel has any right to exist as a Jewish sovereign state.”

It doesn’t have a right to exist as a Jewish sovereign state. Read the Israeli declaration of statehood. All Israeli citizens should be treated equally. Israel belongs to ALL its citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish.

“She may believe that Jews can live as some type of protected minority in a sovereign Palestinian state”

They did for over two thousand years, from the Roman era until 1948. In fact the longest period of Jewish history in the region was as Palestinians.

A)
. No PW, Hezbollah (or its precursor group Amal , both funded and guided by Iran) made plans specifically to attack, bomb and kill American marines (over 220 you have so glibly forgotten,) stationed in Lebanon to keep the fragile peace between waring factions.

B) In general, Americans DO need to defer to Israeli expertise” the kind of combat, warfare and Intel gathering. Of course experience counts for much and were have some American partners who are as crucial to some plans as the regular IDF.
Do they have to defer” everything, every international incident, obviously not. But quite a few seemingly innocuous plans have direct impact on Israel a will be discussed as needed

C) in general, the Palestinian people have not been good partners for a treaty. While I can not speak for the everday working stiff Palestinian family who may likely earn most of not all their income working inside Israel I can easily interpolate that the members of Fatah, all those on the payroll of the corrupt PA as well as Hamas. Also, twice now th he PLO had turned down two very good but limiting offers of land, With generous land swaps but their leaders said, ” No” to at least two legitimate offers

D) so poor pw feels “snookered” because he didn’t get to open Shapiro s brain and examine it for latent signs of dedicated Zionism.

Put into MS. Ashwari ‘s words the entire exercise of hiring not only Shapiro but ambassadors from the past and possibly future as one big conspiracy of Zionist elders making sure the conspiracy continues unabated with, as she said, either making policy or carrying it out.
The Palestinians never got a say. The narrative was controlled, the history was distorted and the entire world was lied to in order for us administrations to keep money pouring in and Israel to have political cover to avoid ever having to deal with the growing Palis. Movements as if they don’t even exist. It’s all one HUGE conspiracy zionists stated with prewar mandate and culminated in their unbelievably cynical yet brilliant use of their status as displaced persons nearly murdered and I camps all over Europe..

Just a conspiracy. All she, along with pw and a few sympathetic professors with their legions of sycophants needed was some time, some disaffected far left liberal elitists, and hoards of confused, guilt ridden, hand ringing kids ready to rebel against mom and pop. Of course it was SO simple it was in front of our noses the whole time. Those crafty Zionist(not Jews mind you as the conspiracy spouting Zionist haters have told us that zionists have absolutely nothing in common with Jews) just sat down after ww2 along with or in front of the 1000s of other writers at the time trying to make sense of the whole epic catastrophes or just specific ones that stood out as so egregious as to seem beyond explanation. But they nailed it!. The Zionist jews simple made up their own narrative which poor poor hanan had been praying years to finally be able to tell us with certainty that the whole Zionist project was one massive lie (or false narrative? Alternate set of facts?) And if can finally be replaced with the oh so relieving stress of the honest to goodness truth.

DaBakr: “Also, twice now th he PLO had turned down two very good but limiting offers of land, With generous land swaps but their leaders said, ” No” to at least two legitimate offers.”

Yep. I think the best way would be to make JSIL at least one legitimate offer, too:
It gets less than 20% of Palestine and will be demilitarized, it’s borders and airspace controlled by Palestine. The coastal area will be put under Palestinian control, too, for security reasons, so that JSIL’s terrorist can’t get weapons and restart their terror campagne anc conquest. Jerusalem will be Palestine’s undivided, eternal capital. All Palestinians will be allowed to return under a “Law of Return”.

I think that this offer is as legitimate as JSIL’s equivalent offers. I’m sure you agree, if you want peace.

“Also, twice now the PLO had turned down two very good but limiting offers of land, With generous land swaps but their leaders said, ”

Reality:

In 1988, the PLO recognized Israel as a sovereign state within the borders of the 1947 recommendatory only UNGA Partition Plan, Res. 181 (which, for the record, violated the terms of the Class A British Mandate for Palestine and the Atlantic Charter, was never adopted by the UNSC and was grossly unfair to the indigenous Palestinian Arab inhabitants.)

By signing the 1993 Oslo Accords, the PLO accepted UNSC Res. 242 and thereby agreed to recognize a sovereign Israel within the 1949 armistice lines, i.e., as of 4 June 1967 – 78% of mandate Palestine.

The PLO also agreed to the US/EU/UN supported 2002 Arab League Beirut Summit Peace Initiative, which offers Israel full recognition as a sovereign state (per UNSC Res. 242, i.e., within its June 4/67 boundaries with possible minor and mutually agreed land swaps), exchange of ambassadors, trade, tourism, etc., if Israel complies with international law and its previous commitments. Fully aware of Israel’s demographic concerns, the Beirut initiative does not demand the return of all Palestinian refugees. In accordance with Israel’s pledge given to the UNGA in 1949 and by signing the 1949 Lausanne Peace Conference Protocol to abide by UNGA Res. 194 regarding the then 800,000 Palestinian refugees as a precondition for admittance to the UN (after being rejected twice), the Arab League’s Initiative “calls upon Israel to affirm” that it agrees to help pursue the “achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem…”

Along with all Arab states and the PLO, Hezbollah and Iran have also accepted the Arab League’s 2002 Beirut Summit Peace Initiative. In its revised Charter (April, 2017) Hamas agreed to a Palestinian state based on the 4 June 1967 borders.

Regrettably, then Israeli PM Ariel Sharon summarily dismissed the Arab League’s peace overture, as did Israel in 2008 and thereafter.

As for the much touted 2000 Camp David Summit, working in tandem, Barak and Clinton tried to shove a very bad deal down Arafat’s throat. It could only be rejected. Suffice to quote Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel’s foreign minister and lead negotiator at Camp David: “Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well.” (National Public Radio, 14 February 2006.)

The “offer” made in 2008 by then Israeli PM Ehud Olmert was never seen as serious because it lacked cabinet approval, he was under indictment with only a few weeks left in office, had a 6% favorable rating, and, therefore, couldn’t have closed the deal, even if the Palestinians had accepted it. (Olmert is now imprisoned.)

Unfortunately, Israel’s response to every peace overture from the Palestinians and Arab states, has been an escalation of illegal settlement construction in belligerently/illegally/brutally occupied Palestinian and other Arab lands.

” … the fact remains that the vast majority of Jews, wether, Brit, German, North African, Persian or American don’t either need nor do they desire too be ‘educated,’ about your list of the negative attributes of Israel…”

Go whine to the Zionist Federation for pushing Israel to be in breach of its legal obligations under International Law.

” … and your false narrative of the evils of Zionism.”

What part is false. You forgot to say.

Is it not true that the Zionist Federation decided in 1897 set up the Jewish COLONIAL Trust in order to specifically colonize Palestine and that they loaned money to specifically poor Jews ( specifically at interest ) on condition that they put themselves on the front lines in Palestine to further the Zionist Colonization process?

Take your time answering

“Im sure we are quite comfortable In building the lands thatbelong to the Jews while providing liberty and full civil rights to any minority groups they live among us.”

Wonderful. Might be best tho for Israelis to stick to living in Israel instead of illegally settling in non-Israeli territories illegally acquired by war by the Jewish state since proclaiming its borders effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948

Might be best tho for Israelis to stick to living in Israel instead of illegally settling in non-Israeli territories illegally acquired by war by the Jewish state since proclaiming its borders effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948.
Wonderful.

What part of illegally settled, illegally acquired by war, illegally proclaimed and illegally recognized “Israel” is legal, as opposed to “non-Israeli territories illegally acquired by war”. You forgot to say.

Is it not true that the Zionist Federation decided in 1897 [to] set up the Jewish COLONIAL Trust in order to specifically colonize Palestine and that they loaned money to specifically poor Jews (specifically at interest ) on condition that they put themselves on the front lines in Palestine to further the Zionist Colonization process?

Is it not equally true that the British Empire illegally invaded Palestine with these declaredly hostile Zionist hordes in breach of its fiduciary obligations and, together with the other COLONIAL powers, illegally approved the illegal 1948 declaration of independence by these colonial invaders, violating the very UN Chart?

Rejecting the 1965 conquest while recognizing a legitimacy to the 1947/48 one is impossible. You are attempting a squaring of the circle: no can do.

Israel exists as a state. Like it or not. Legally or illegally. Just or unjust. Not at my insistence. Not with my assistance. Certainly not with any approval on my part.

If useful idiot supporters of the Zionist Federation’s colonialism insist on Israel’s existence as a state, then it must be held to its obligations to International Law and the UN Charter as stated in the Israeli declaration of statehood and numerous other official Jewish Agency and Israeli Government commitments.

Israel exists as a state. Like it or not. Legally or illegally. Just or unjust. Not at my insistence. Not with my assistance.

It continues its illegal existence with your very insistent assistance, with your hammering in the readers’ mind, day in, day out the inevitability of a recognition and existence in blatant violation of the UN Charter. Quote you? Read your last message.

Go on defending the squaring of the circle. If post-67 is illegal, pre-67 is just as illegal. If 48 is legal, what’s different with 67?

You continously suggest that Israel should stick to its self declared borders (in accordance with res 181) as if this was legitimate and that ONLY what followed wasn’t. But you fail to explain the legal and moral difference and won’t answer (t)his question.

“You continously suggest that Israel should stick to its self declared borders (in accordance with res 181) as if this was legitimate and that ONLY what followed wasn’t. But you fail to explain the legal and moral difference and won’t answer (t)his question “

B) “ONLY what followed” is relevant to the State of Israel, which didn’t effectively exist prior to 00:01 May 15th 1948

My argument to those put forward by supporters of the Zionist Movement’s state is based on what Israel obliged itself to maintain according to the official statements of the Jewish Agency/Zionist Federation, prior to and after Israel’s declaration of statehood, all of which shows Israel’s leaders, the Jewish Agency and the Zionist Federation to be damnable liars. If, as they insist, Israel has a right to exist, then that state must adhere to the rules. It clearly hasn’t

There are numerous ways of arguing the various aspects of the situation. Each to their own

“But you fail to explain the legal and moral difference and won’t answer (t)his question.”

I’m not sure there is any difference between asking Israel to honor the ’48 lines and asking Israel to destroy itself. There is some satisfaction to be derived from holding out the ’48 lines and letting the Zionists explain why those lines will never do, could never do. Why they must and will fight to resist being held to them!

“I’m not sure there is any difference between asking Israel to honor the ’48 lines and asking Israel to destroy itself.”

There’s a vast difference.

To be clear, the UNRWA figure so often cited by Zionist propagandists is only to ascertain who qualifies for assistance whilst they are refugees. The UNRWA mandate (1949) and definition does not extend to final status or RoR nor does it relate to UNGA res 194 (1948). Zionists it seems are spectacularly ignorant of chronological order. UNRWA didn’t even exist in 1948.

They do however, have RoR to non-Israeli territories illegally acquired by war since Israel’s borders were proclaimed effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 and recognized as such. None of these territories acquired by war have yet become Israeli by any agreement. Although the Palestinians have stated categorically they are willing to cede 78% of their rightful territories to Israel for peace, Israel has yet to accept or agree.

In respect to the alleged demographic threat, simple maths and a touch of logic tells us the Jewish population long ago exceeded the point where there was any demographic threat by allowing RoR for non-Jewish Israelis dispossessed in 1948/50 to the self proclaimed and internationally recognized Israeli territories of 1948.

By 1950 there was an influxof some 500,000 Arab Jews from the Arab States alone adding to the number of Jewish Israelis already there by 1948. Added to which there were refugees from Europe, plus an influx of non-refugees from around the world. Whereas the number of non-Jewish Israeli refugees has actually decreased through natural attrition. Even with their lineal descendants, Jewish Israelis and their offspring far outnumber any demographic threat from the declining number of non-Jewish Israelis who were dispossessed and their growing number of offspring.

A.) Your link is a google result … What is anybody supposed to look for?

B.) ” If, as they insist, Israel has a right to exist, then that state must adhere to the rules. It clearly hasn’t.”

To follow your own logic: It exist, even it doesn’t abide to the rules. So there goes your argument.

And it has been de facto recognized within 67 lines by the vast majority of the UNGAR members when they call for a two state solution within these borders. And not a single security council resolution has condemned Israel’s annexation of the territories between the borders it declared in 1948 and the 67 lines. This has become customary law.

And you are avoiding the question about the legality of Israel’s establishment through conquest and expulsion by implying that if Israel would abide by the rules (basically respecting the borders in which it declared statehood) then everything would be ok. It’s basically a Zionist position.

P.S. Please quote what you want to be read from all these links you provide.

We see the many logical problems with ‘right to exist’. ‘Exist’ is not a descriptive term: you have to add descriptive terms like ‘in its current state’ or ‘within its 67 borders’ or ‘as provider of justice to Jewish and Palestinian people alike’. Our view of the RtE would probably be different for the different descriptions. The third one I mentioned would not imply that the real Israel had any right to exist, since it does not provide enough justice. The first one would confer that right even if the s quo is totally maintained.
I think most people who have thought about the problem would say that Israel has a right to exist as power compliant with relevant UN resolutions: that (talknic’s) is the majority view, I believe, though some of us might think that it attributes too much moral authority to what is only a committee. It might be agreed that Israel’s compliance with those resolutions, not only about 67, was quite problematic. But then you run up against the problems of conditional rights. How long is the piece of string that measures the time that Israel has to comply? If compliance is not total do all Israel’s rights lapse? Are you allowed to claim rights on the basis of some international resolutions whilst refusing to obey others having the same authority? But are conditional rights really rights?
The idea of RtE gives rise to much dispute and little clear truth.

Your link is essentially an exposition of facts plus a summary of colonialist interpretation of rights.

Palestine is still entirely occupied by colonial invaders with no right to be there, and no one except the owners of the land, not ever including any of the hostile invaders, has a say about that. Period. Your link does not sufficiently address that and I now regret wasting time reading irrelevant stuff.

I think most people who have thought about the problem would say that Israel has a right to exist as power compliant with relevant UN resolutions: that (talknic’s) is the majority view, I believe, though some of us might think that it attributes too much moral authority to what is only a committee.

Would be more complete to specify that is a committee dominated and guided totally by the colonialist powers of its time, engaging in a blatant violation of its own Charter and the most basic principles of international law as at its own time.
This last statement is not controversial at all. So what can one conclude about that majority view?

“A.) Your link is a google result … What is anybody supposed to look for?”

The number of references to MW and elsewhere where I’ve done what I’ve been accused here of not doing in respect to the legality of partition . Take your pick

//B.) ” If, as they insist, Israel has a right to exist, then that state must adhere to the rules. It clearly hasn’t.”//

“To follow your own logic: It exist, even it doesn’t abide to the rules. So there goes your argument.”.

You’re not making sense. There are two conditions. Pre 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) when Israel didn’t exist and post 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) when Israel. legitimate or not, did exist.

Prior to 00:01 May 15th 1948 there was a civil war in Palestine. In this period properties were illegally taken by Jewish terrorist groups, non-state actors. Israel didn’t exist.

At precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948, with Jewish forces already in territories outside the proclaimed borders of the State of Israel, the civil war became a war waged by the State of Israel on and in what remained of Palestine. From 00:01 May 15th 1948 on, it was the State of Israel illegally acquiring territories “outside the State of Israel”

“And it has been de facto recognized within 67 lines by the vast majority of the UNGAR members when they call for a two state solution within these borders. And not a single security council resolution has condemned Israel’s annexation of the territories between the borders it declared in 1948 and the 67 lines. This has become customary law. “

There’s a few slight problems there.

A) The main player, Israel hasn’t agreed. The only proclaimed and actually recognized borders of Israel are those of 00:01 May 15th 1948 per UNGA re 181

B) de facto is certainly not de jure!

C) Nor does one conflict instance make customary law. The law, customary or otherwise exists until the law itself is repealed and it while it is in force it applies to everyone at all times. The law existed before and will continue to exist if this is resolved and it will be applicable towards any possible future conflicts, in an attempt to discourage such conflicts from arising and if they do, hopefully act as a guide in determining who is responsible and how the conflict should be resolved.

It was still unsuccessfully trying in August 1949 as a UN Member State to legally acquire those territories “outside the State of Israel”. It was was rebuffed, referred back to the specific article in the Armistice Agreements, making it very clear the Armistice Demarcation Lines were not to be taken as borders http://wp.me/pDB7k-l5#israels-intentions

E) Israel wasn’t a UN Member when it illegally acquired territories beyond its self proclaimed and recognized partition borders. The UN doesn’t adopt resolutions directly censuring/naming non member states. Nor does it pass resolutions condemning Member States for their actions prior to becoming Member States. Last I was challenged on this point I was shown examples where no actual state was censured

“And you are avoiding the question about the legality of Israel’s establishment through conquest and expulsion by implying that if Israel would abide by the rules (basically respecting the borders in which it declared statehood) then everything would be ok.”

Nonsense. My position has been that it will be far from OK. Under the law, Israel must withdraw, take its citizens who’re not likely to want to cooperate, pay billions in compensation it can ill afford. A failed state attempting to evict and repatriate hundreds of thousands of angry Israelis who’ve been duped and now they gotta move? They ain’t gonna be happy. A failed state armed to the teeth descending into civil war in territories outside of its borders isn’t OK

“P.S. Please quote what you want to be read from all these links you provide”
———————-
Talkback April 14, 2017, 12:10 pm

Talknic: “By this definition many Palestine refugees were from outside of Israel’s 1948 borders.”

Talknic: “The number of references to MW and elsewhere where I’ve done what I’ve been accused here of not doing in respect to the legality of partition . Take your pick.”

Why don’t you simply say what your position is? I don’t have the time to go through a list of google results.

Talknic: “You’re not making sense.”

I’m just arguing against your position. There’s no resolution which condemns the expansion of Israeli law (and therefore sovereignity) to the territories it conqured beyond res 181 and within 67 lines (excluding Jerusalem). Israel “exists” there, too.

Talknic: “… it was the State of Israel illegally acquiring territories “outside the State of Israel””

So what? What is the point to make a difference who (non state actor or state actor) acquired what territory by war and expulsion? It the latter less illegal than the former? Is it more legitimate, becauser UN members have diplomatic relationship with Israel, in other words, “recognize” it? I still don’t understand why you make this difference. Either every territory was acquired through war and expulsion OR not. Statehood doesn’t mean entitlement.

Talknic: “OK. This is approximate …”

OK. I can follow your argument. But it would be more clear if you would write: “the territories Israel conquered beyond its recognized borders in accordance with res 181 and which lie within 67 lines.” At least for outsiders.

You’d like it to not exist. Tough. it does. Although I don’t agree with how it came into existence, I support innocent folks’ right, including innocent Jews and non-Jews caught up in the Zionist project, to live in peace in a state.

In that respect, a non-expansive, ‘peace loving’ state with true equality for its citizens should not be a problem. Neighbourly states with mixed cultural, mixed ethnic and mixed religions do exist in the world.

“That’s all you can say, hundreds of times. without ever answering any questions like “So f***** what? So did the Third Reich.””

I have no idea who you’re quoting. I have answered the question. If you want me to use your exact thoughts and words you’ll have to give over your life, body and mind, however, I’m actually quite OK with my own thx

“Is that why your output essentially consists of a defense of the existence of the Zio entity created without consulting them?”

Strange, you can’t quote one word I’ve said in this alleged defense. I have in fact written thousands of words showing the trail of Zionist lies leading up to and after Israel came into existence, none of which amount to defense of the Zionist colonization of Palestine.

“Why don’t you simply say what your position is? I don’t have the time to go through a list of google results”

The search results show where I have stated my position numerous times. It doesn’t seem to work on some folk who for some really weird reason think that criticism of Zionist liars is support for Zionist liars.

“There’s no resolution which condemns the expansion of Israeli law (and therefore sovereignity) to the territories it conqured beyond res 181 and within 67 lines (excluding Jerusalem). Israel “exists” there, too”

Israel wasn’t a UN Member when it illegally acquired non-Israeli territories beyond its borders in 1948/49. The UN doesn’t directly censure non-member states, nor does it censure Member States for their actions prior to membership even though those actions might be illegal. The place for those censures would possibly be with the ICJ and for war crimes the ICC.

A large part of Israel’s fear of an independent Palestinian state is that once achieved, full Palestinian Membership in the UN is the next obvious step. As a full UN Member, Palestine can then set in motion a number of processes addressing every legal aspect on the Question of Palestine for which Israel actually has no legal defense. (Israel only has US UNSC veto protection against actions which might be taken for its violations of the UN Charter and International Law as described, reaffirmed and emphasized in numerous Chapt VI resolutions reminding Israel of its binding obligations

Nor does Israel have the finances to even begin to address the massive compensations due Palestinians and dispossessed non-Jewish Israeli citizens, while attempting the relocation of hundreds of thousands of illegal settlers from ALL non-Israeli territories dating back to 00:01 May 15th 1948

“So what? What is the point to make a difference who (non state actor or state actor) acquired what territory by war and expulsion? It the latter less illegal than the former? … etc etc …”

What occurred in a civil war, even though illegal, were not the actions of a state that didn’t exist at the time. A point which, if the Zionist legal team were worth their salt, would have been well aware. They weren’t idiots. The same can not be said of Israeli Governments

” … would be more clear if you would write: “the territories Israel conquered beyond its recognized borders in accordance with res 181 and which lie within 67 lines.” At least for outsiders

talknic: Prior to 00:01 May 15th 1948 there was a civil war in Palestine. In this period properties were illegally taken by Jewish terrorist groups, non-state actors. Israel didn’t exist.

At precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948, with Jewish forces already in territories outside the proclaimed borders of the State of Israel, the civil war became a war waged by the State of Israel on and in what remained of Palestine. From 00:01 May 15th 1948 on, it was the State of Israel illegally acquiring territories “outside the State of Israel”. [emphasis added]
————-

1)Did the American Civil War cease to be a civil war the moment the Confederate States of America were proclaimed to be an independent nation?

2) If part of an existing state declares independence and tries to secede and war ensues, are you saying such a war is not a civil war?

3) Is a mere declaration of independence enough bring a state into existence and turn a “non-state actor” into a “state actor”?

4)Can you cite any legal document, legal authority or scholar that affirms as you do that at precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948, when Israel was proclaimed to be an independent nation, the civil war in Palestine ceased to be a civil war?

5) Can you cite any official definition of “civil war ” in international law? If not, what definition from what source are you using to make those claims?

6)From 00:01 May 15th 1948 on, it was the State of Israel illegally acquiring territories “outside the State of Israel.

So prior to that moment, the acquisition of territory by force by Jewish “non-state actors” was not illegal–because it occurred during a “civil war”?

Although I don’t agree with how it came into existence, I support innocent folks’ right, including innocent Jews and non-Jews caught up in the Zionist project, to live in peace in a state.

See, you continue. There is no such right unless voluntarily conceded, in the absence of duress, by the owners of the place, aka the Palestinian people.

I would like all those nice things you say, too, but see, I am not the fully authorized representative of the Palestinian people. I am not even an individual Palestinian, not even a collaborator. So who am I to dictate to the Palestinians?

Now, who are you to dictate to the Palestinians, owners of Palestine, and give rights to the invaders, “innocent” or not? Feeling an overload of White Man’s Burden? All that equality, fraternity stuff is totally worthless if not gracefully conceded by the owners, period.

Talkback: What is the point to make a difference who (non state actor or state actor) acquired what territory by war and expulsion? It the latter less illegal than the former? Is it more legitimate…
—————–

“Legality” based on international law has to be distinguished from “legitimacy”, not to mention “morality”.

Furthermore, legality as officially expressed and codified by international institutions (eg. the UN, ICJ) has to be distinguished from non-official legal opinions , however valid the latter may be.

Keeping those distinctions in mind, it has to be pointed out that the principle of the inadmissibility of territorial acquisition by war has been applied by the UN, ICJ etc to territory acquired by Israel during the 1967 war, but NOT to territory acquired before the 1949 armistice agreements, either before or after Israel proclaimed itself a state.

From a legal standpoint , that first war was generally viewed as a non-international conflict to which international law largely did not apply. (The political reality was that no major power was willing to commit the troops that would have been necessary to prevent or roll back the ethnic cleansing carried out by Jewish forces.)

—————-

[Hostage:] […]The Stimson Doctrine did not apply to civil wars between the lawful inhabitants of a State. In the 1930s only States could enter into international agreements and only States were considered persons of international law in accordance with Article 1 of The Montevideo Convention (1933). BTW, that was only an international agreement between States. Article 11 only established a conventional rule of their conduct that applied to wars between themselves (international armed conflicts). Treaties were not considered binding agreements with respect to non-State belligerents or insurgents.

[…]During civil wars in a High Contracting State, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies. Many of the 161 customary rules of international law do not apply to non-international armed conflicts , (NIAC). See the list for the applicable rules for international armed conflicts (IAC): link to icrc.org

[Avi_G.:]Phil, Finkelstein, and others sometimes like to separate the legal precedent that is the UN Partition Plan and Declaration of Independence, from the war of aggression of 1967, forgetting that land acquired in 1948 by force cannot be legally annexed.

[Hostage:] The principles of international law regarding annexation of territory did not apply to the civil war (a non-international armed conflict) between the communities of the Palestine mandate.

After the mandate was terminated, Israel declared its independence and the Arabs declared a union between Transjordan and Arab Palestine. Once Israel and Jordan were both admitted to the UN as member states, and none of their citizens shared a common Palestinian nationality, the on-going conflict was transformed into an international one. The ICJ noted that, in 1967, both sides were High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions. So the situation then was completely different.

In 1947, the UN had been asked to propose a peaceful solution to the increasingly violent situation in Palestine. The Security Council accepted the General Assembly’s recommendation in principle, but it became clear that the partition plan could not be carried out by peaceful means. The members of the Security Council objected to the use of force to impose a political solution on the Charter basis that the United Nations is not authorized to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State. So it called the General Assembly back into special session. A Mediator was appointed to find an alternative, negotiated, solution. The portion of the GA resolution on partition was never actually implemented, although both sides later claimed the other had “violated” the terms.

The parties concerned entered into international armistice agreements which granted the belligerents civil jurisdiction to apply their municipal laws up to the “Green Lines”. That is the normal definition of annexation. The agreements also constituted “belligerent recognition” under customary international law […]

[Hostage:] […]The Plan of Partition for the two states was only one of the many chapters in the recommended “Plan for the Future Government Of Palestine”, UN GA resolution 181(II). It was never implemented due to the non-international armed conflict in Palestine. Israel was created by its own act of secession during a civil war, so international law was largely inapplicable. […]

[Hostage: […]The conflict in Palestine was essentially viewed as a civil war. For example, after the Deir Yassin massacre, the members of the Security Council met privately and decided that the anticipated entry of Abdullah into Palestine would not necessarily constitute an act of aggression – if he were coming to the aid of his disorganized and demoralized brethren who had become the objects of Jewish attack. Like Folke Bernadotte, they privately proposed a union of the Arab portions of the Mandate.

The principles of inter-temporal law would prevent anyone from going to the ICJ on the basis of resolution 181(II) to take back territory legally occupied under the terms of the General Armistice Agreements. The ICJ has already said that it still considers the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan to be a valid undertaking. See paragraph 129 (.pdf)of the Wall advisory opinion. […]

talknic: “The search results show where I have stated my position numerous times. It doesn’t seem to work on some folk who for some really weird reason think that criticism of Zionist liars is support for Zionist liars.”

Nobody claimed that you support “Zionist liars”. That’s a strawman. You focus on the “dishonesty” of Zionists. What’s the pont?

Talknic: “What occurred in a civil war, even though illegal, were not the actions of a state that didn’t exist at the time.”

Again, so what? Why do you focus on this difference? Why not simply focus on the position that the conquest of any inch of Palestine was illegitimate? Even the proclamation violated SEC RES 46.

//Although I don’t agree with how it came into existence, I support innocent folks’ right, including innocent Jews and non-Jews caught up in the Zionist project, to live in peace in a state//

“See, you continue. There is no such right”

It’s a universal right fhttp://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

“I would like all those nice things you say, too, but see, I am not the fully authorized representative of the Palestinian people. I am not even an individual Palestinian, not even a collaborator. So who am I to dictate to the Palestinians?”

Yet you are. On the other hand, I’m accepting of the Palestinian declaration of statehood 1988, as are the majority of the world’s states

” 1) Did the American Civil War cease to be a civil war the moment the Confederate States of America were proclaimed to be an independent nation?”

It’s arguable because both shared a common nationality. However, it was also a war between the Union ( United States) and the Confederate States . I’m inclined to think that a common nationality made it a civil war

“2) If part of an existing state declares independence and tries to secede and war ensues, are you saying such a war is not a civil war?”

A better question might be – If the warring parties do not share a common nationality is it a civil war?

“3) Is a mere declaration of independence enough bring a state into existence and turn a “non-state actor” into a “state actor”?”

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of states says it is. It’s called self determination if the majority of the population of a territory decide that’s what they want

“4)Can you cite any legal document, legal authority or scholar that affirms as you do that at precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948, when Israel was proclaimed to be an independent nation, the civil war in Palestine ceased to be a civil war?”

A) The two parties were no longer of the same nationality. B) The Armistice Agreements indicate it was an international conflict

“5) Can you cite any official definition of “civil war ” in international law?”

To show responsibility for the conflict, where compensation is actually due and importantly to show Jewish folk how they have been deceived because Jewish folk have the latent power to very swiftly close the chapter on the Zionist scourge

//“What occurred in a civil war, even though illegal, were not the actions of a state that didn’t exist at the time.”//

“Again, so what? Why do you focus on this difference?”

Legalities under the law. Can’t sue a state for something that didn’t happen when it didn’t exist

“Why not simply focus on the position that the conquest of any inch of Palestine was illegitimate? Even the proclamation violated SEC RES 46.”

One could do that, but “what’s the point”. Who’re you gonna sue? Dead Zionists? Dead war criminals can’t be punished. States can be made to pay compensation (Germany). States can be made to withdraw (Egypt/Israel Peace Treaty) (Indonesia /East Timor) (Iraq/Kuwait)

Of course not. It’s the doing of politicians with no general mandate, no title to represent the Palestinian people other than having been co-opted by the same colonial powers that had already subverted the UN to force a decision violating the UN Charter itself. You may choose your own words to describe these traitors (and the colonial slaves that make up the great majority of the UN) but you may not pretend to ignore that there was no Palestinian mandate to do so, or to try and smuggle the Zionist invaders as bona fide Palestinians.

I’m accepting of the Palestinian declaration of statehood 1988,

That is not your major offense. How about the other part: You are “accepting of” the Zionist invaders’ “declaration of statehood” 1948, “as are the majority of the world’s states”. That is all the problem. Bringing every time that majority as if it legalized the illegality and banditism of the partition is not likely to impress anyone with a brain, at any rate not as anything more than a legitimization of aggression and brute force.

Talknic: “Although I don’t agree with how it came into existence, I support innocent folks’ right, including innocent Jews and non-Jews caught up in the Zionist project, to live in peace in a state … It’s a universal right http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/”

I think you mean that everybody has a right to a nationality. In 1948 Jews exercised this right as citizens of Palestine (or as citizens of any other state). That doesn’t mean that anybody had a right to create a state within mandated Palestine “to live in peace” in it.

And I might add that it is a kind of strange argumentation to argue that Zionist non state actors weren’t violating “international law” pre the proclamation of the state of Israel. So what? So they were terrorists enganged in an illegal coup d’etat to take over a country from within by force and expulsion (and continued to do this later as state actors). They were not different then ISIS in this respect.

To me you are playing a similiar game as some ZIonist commenters here. The kind of “allthough I don’t agree with how … but it exists … and I support innocent …”-Zionism. The kind of “Israel is the innocent child born as a result of the Zionist rape of Palestine”-Zionism.

“Of course not. It’s the doing of politicians with no general mandate, no title to represent the Palestinian people other than having been co-opted by the same colonial powers that had already subverted the UN to force a decision violating the UN Charter itself. “

Interesting theory. However, the declaration was delivered by one Yasser Arafat 15th November 1988.

BTW You’re not putting up any alternatives as to who does por should have been representing the Palestinian people.

“You may choose your own words to describe these traitors (and the colonial slaves that make up the great majority of the UN) but you may not pretend to ignore that there was no Palestinian mandate to do so”

Uh? How many times do you need references to where I have expressed the need for Palestinian right to self determination before it sinks in?

// I’m accepting of the Palestinian declaration of statehood 1988, //

“That is not your major offense. How about the other part: You are “accepting of” the Zionist invaders’ “declaration of statehood” 1948, “as are the majority of the world’s states”. That is all the problem.”

A) It’s an ‘offense’ to accept a Declaration of Statehood by Yasser Arafat? B) My accepting the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, you have to be joking. http://wp.me/pDB7k-D6

I repeat. IF the Zionistas insist Israel has a right to exist then they must also accept that i’s recognition gave it borders and that it has legal and moral and ethical obligations as a state and a UN Member. My arguments presented AGAINST their arguments, not yours

In respect to any alleged acceptance of Israel’s existence, or legitimacy on my part, what rubbish. It’s coming into existence was another missed opportunity for A) peace in the region and B) ironically for the Zionist fantasy itself and C) for the alleged right of Jewish folk to be able to live anywhere in the Jewish People’s alleged historic homeland http://wp.me/pDB7k-pE

The reality, right or wrong, is that the majority of the world’s states, rightly or wrongly recognized Israel and rightly or wrongly, Israel was accepted into the UN. I have never agreed to how it happened. It happened.

Now the world is dealing with that state because that’s what exist now. It can be pursued and sued in the courts and at the UN. Dead Zionists cannot.

thereby strangling the resistance movement, badly damaged but getting new life with the intifada. Killing the popular movement in Palestine, at the bidding of the Zionist-occupied US of f. A. I suppose it sounds more serious if we say delivered at 00:01? You seem to have missed the huge catastrophe of Oslo, the complete collapse, the placing of the remaining resistance organizations under direct military control of the Zionist entity, their becoming an organ of the Zionist occupation police, etc. etc. Not a reflection on the personal courage of Arafat, who was rewarded for this surrender by getting murdered when he became a spent lemon.

What f “state”, fercrissakes? That’s a Zionist occupation police totally under Zionist-US control, without any chance of an autonomous gesture. Theatrics with highfalutin words, State titles, all that is pure BS. Even the useful gestures before the UN or the ICJ once in a while, to keep some semblance of the PA being Palestinian, are pure theater calculated not to disturb the game.

BTW You’re not putting up any alternatives as to who does por[sic] should have been representing the Palestinian people.

Once again: How about the only authorized, the Palestinian people, in a plebiscite that includes the entire Palestinian people, i.e. all descendants of Palestinians as of the year the Zionists announced their hostile takeover intention with the help of the bloody English crown? Including all the diaspora, including of course all Jewish Palestinians as of 1897. In the absence of duress, i.e. military occupation or other strong-arming.

If it comes too late, or if it is totally impossible, of course the solution will be a huge lot of violence. There always is, when this kind of stuff gets straightened out. Unless the Zionists-US prevent it by even greater violence, ie a successful genocide.

How many times do you need references to where I have expressed the need for Palestinian right to self determination before it sinks in?

How can the recognition by colonial powers and their lackeys of a Zionist entity on Palestinian territory be seen as “Palestinian self-determination”? Orwell would have loved that one.

“I think you mean that everybody has a right to a nationality. In 1948 Jews exercised this right as citizens of Palestine (or as citizens of any other state). That doesn’t mean that anybody had a right to create a state within mandated Palestine “to live in peace” in it.”

I do and indeed it doesn’t. We must also consider the fact that in 1988 the Palestinians under the leadership of Yasser Arafat declared their state and the majority of the world’s nations accepted and recognized the State of Palestine. Whatever lay outside of that declaration is not Palestinian, they have relinquished the right to persistent objection under law.

However, until such time as Israel accepts and recognizes Palestine, Israel cannot be recognized as existing in any borders other than those proclaimed and recognized as effective 00:01 May 15th 1948. As it stands Israel hasn’t accepted the territories so generously ceded by the Palestinian Declaration, so it’s simply ridiculous to claim recognition of Israel within the Green line when Israel has not itself declared acceptance of that situation.

“And I might add that it is a kind of strange argumentation to argue that Zionist non state actors weren’t violating “international law” pre the proclamation of the state of Israel”

Yes quite strange. I’ve never made any such argument. In fact I said the opposite.

“So they were terrorists enganged in an illegal coup d’etat to take over a country from within by force and expulsion (and continued to do this later as state actors). They were not different then ISIS in this respect.”

I agree. Seems folk aren’t reading my posts care fully

“To me you are playing a similiar game as some ZIonist commenters here…”

If you miss read …

BTW I don’t play games here. Words in this issue have an influence over life and death. Every person who can be shown the deceit of the Zionist Federation is a small step towards resolving the issue by ridding the world of the Zionist scourge

Talknic: “However, until such time as Israel accepts and recognizes Palestine, Israel cannot be recognized as existing in any borders other than those proclaimed and recognized as effective 00:01 May 15th 1948.”

Again, on the one hand it’s safe to say that the majority of the UN members have inherently recognized Israel within 67 lines while supporting the two state solution. And any member CAN recognize Israel in any borders they like and even if it doesn’t recognize Palestine.

On the other hand you could acknowledge that the proclamation of Israel violated SEC RES 46 (1d) and following your own reasoning you would have to come to the conclusion that Israel CAN NOT be recognized in ANY borders. But strangely enough you avoid my reference to SEC RES 46 every time I bring it up.

The only claim you could make is that Israel SHOULDN’T be recognized beyond 48 borders and until it recogizes Palestine. But that’s not a legal approach. And again the question remains why you think it should be recognized at all if its proclamation violated Security Council’s resolution 46 (1d).

Your approach sounds as if it is based on legal grounds, but it actually isn’t. It’s a post-Zionist smoke screen to divert from the question, if Israel’s establishment has any legitimacy at all.

“Again, on the one hand it’s safe to say that the majority of the UN members have inherently recognized Israel within 67 lines while supporting the two state solution. “

I’ve been asking the following questions for decades.
1) Please show an official document of recognition by any state other than those of 1948/49/50.
2) Please show an official document where territories “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine” were officially annexed in agreement with the Palestinians

“And any member CAN recognize Israel in any borders they like and even if it doesn’t recognize Palestine”

Show a document where they have actually recognized Israel other than as proclaimed effective 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time).

“On the other hand you could acknowledge that the proclamation of Israel violated SEC RES 46 (1d) and following your own reasoning you would have to come to the conclusion that Israel CAN NOT be recognized in ANY borders. “

They trashed it. Go complain to the states that recognized Israel by its plea for recognition. It had nothing to do with me

“But strangely enough you avoid my reference to SEC RES 46 every time I bring it up”

Too late. The majority of states, rightly or wrong, just or unjust, whether we agree or not, did recognize Israel by the borders in its plea for recognition.

“The only claim you could make is that Israel SHOULDN’T be recognized beyond 48 borders and until it recogizes Palestine.”

A) How many times must I say Israel shouldn’t be recognized beyond the 48 borders?

B) Recognition is not based on the condition that one state must recognize another. There are numerous states in the UN who do not recognize each other. They are however, recognized in some manner or another by a majority of the International Comity of Nations, prior to UN membership

” But that’s not a legal approach.”

Indeed it isn’t. It is however a turn against the Israeli bullsh*t arguments and demands that there must be a peace agreement with Palestine before ending occupation and Palestine must recognize Israel as the Jewish State blah blah. Israel itself was recognized before it recognized anyone and it was recognized before it signed any peace treaties.

It was in fact recognized while at war with its all its neighbours until the Peace Treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Furthermore it was at war in non-Israeli territories when it was recognized. The UNSC resolutions on the question of Palestine all call for peace “in Palestine” not in Israel. The wars have never been in Israeli territories.

“And again the question remains why you think it should be recognized at all if its proclamation violated Security Council’s resolution 46 (1d).”

Oh FFS I’ve never said or thought it should be recognized or should have been recognized. You’re making false assertions.

The fact is, right or wrong, whether we agree or not, justly or unjustly, it was recognized and as such is bound to adhere to A) It’s recognized borders and B) adhere to International Law, the UN Charter and relevant conventions. It has failed on all accounts

“Your approach sounds as if it is based on legal grounds, but it actually isn’t. It’s a post-Zionist smoke screen to divert from the question … “

Talknic: “1) Please show an official document of recognition by any state other than those of 1948/49/50.”

Please prove that the majority of countries who recognize Israel don’t recognize for example Jaffa, Ashdod and Bersheeba to be a part of Israel and claim that these places are occupied Palestinian territory. You can also use any official UN document, including advisory opinions from the ICJ and resolutions from the General Assembly and the Security Council.

Talknic: “They trashed it.”

In that case they also trashed your position. But the question remains, why you don’t make a case for it since it seems all to be about regocnition for you. Why don’t you argue that Israel can’t be recognized at all, because its proclamation violated SEC RES 46? And what’s your position about non recognition, because of non compliace with 194?

You’re ridiculous. THERE ISN’T ONE! You’ve said as much yourself. You want me to produce something that doesn’t exist? Sure dude, lend me some of you magic powder

Repeat “The acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible” The notion of self determination was Customary International Law some years before Israel ever existed and; no such referendum has ever been conducted in any of the territories Israel has acquired by war” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/santorums-pulp-hasbara/#comment-416435

Only, you still didn’t produce that plebiscite.”
You’re ridiculous. THERE ISN’T ONE! You’ve said as much yourself. You want me to produce something that doesn’t exist?

Halleluiah. Looks like you start getting it. Or not?

Of course there is no such plebiscite! That’s what I have been pointing out all the time.

In its absence, Zionist invaders can only lift all occupation and constraints and ask for a proper plebiscite, where they have no voice, hoping that the result perhaps authorizes some of them to stay (perhaps after giving guarantees of loyalty as Palestinian citizens?) Or just get the hell out.

Because, as you say so yourself,

“The acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible” The notion of self determination was Customary International Law some years before Israel ever existed and; no such referendum has ever been conducted in any of the territories Israel has acquired by war”

Well guess what, all the territory of that “Israel” abomination has been acquired by war. Every single f. inch. Not one inch that you can continue to see as “Israel” or whatever the fancy Zionist name.

If we leave justice for a moment and talk real world, well a plebiscite is of course a pipe dream but still the only bloodless way out –and as such to be highly recommended.

Considering what we have seen so far of the sense of justice of invaded and occupied populations, there are necessarily only two stable alternatives in the absence of such a plebiscite: either reinstatement of Palestine or a successful genocide of the owners, American-style or worse. A solution as in Algeria now sounds too optimistic now. As for any compromise solutions, they can’t be more stable than with the current phantom “state” and its puppets. There is a reason invasion was described as “inadmissible”.

Oh FFS. I wrote that particular comment in 2012. Look at the date. It’s been the position on the talknic blog since day one (circa 2010 https://talknic.wordpress.com/?s=referendum) and; I’ve been saying it for at least 30 years.

“Of course there is no such plebiscite! That’s what I have been pointing out all the time”

You arrived at MW quite some timer AFTER 2012. I was pointing it out at MW before you arrived.

// “The acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible” The notion of self determination was Customary International Law some years before Israel ever existed and; no such referendum has ever been conducted in any of the territories Israel has acquired by war”//

“Well guess what, all the territory of that “Israel” abomination has been acquired by war. Every single f. inch. Not one inch that you can continue to see as “Israel” or whatever the fancy Zionist name”

Israel didn’t exist before 00:01 may 15th 1948. You can point the finger at the Zionist movement/Jewish Agency/Jewish terrorist gangs prior to that exact time. We can also read their official statements at the UN/UNSC and by comparing them to their subsequent statements and actions see that they were vile, scheming, liars. They cannot however be taken to court, sued, made to withdraw, pay compensation. They are for the most part dead!

Post 00:01 May 15th 1948, you’re dealing with a state, that whether we agree with how it came to be , whether we like it or hate it, whether we think it is illegal or not, exists. You can take it and any of its leaders who’re still breathing to court and sue or prosecute them for crimes and for compensation. You cannot do the same of dead Zionist liars and murderers.

“If we leave justice for a moment and talk real world, well a plebiscite is of course a pipe dream but still the only bloodless way out –and as such to be highly recommended”

Indeed. BTW in the real world Israel exists

” … … There is a reason invasion was described as “inadmissible””

The “acquisition of territory” by war is inadmissible. Under the Laws of War, one may invade and occupy territory for strategic military purposes once a war has been started. Wars are started by the party firing the first salvo. It is illegal to start a war without first lodging a Declaration of War with the UNSC. Israel has never declared war. All its wars have been ilegal. As far as I am aware, the Arab States’ Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine was the last Declaration of War ever lodged with the UNSC .

Once hostilities are over, the Occupying Power is required to either legally annex occupied territories via a plebiscite/referendum of the legitimate citizens of the territories to be annexed or as with the Egypt/Israel peace treaty, withdraw.

// Talknic: “1) Please show an official document of recognition by any state other than those of 1948/49/50.” //

“Please prove that the majority of countries who recognize Israel don’t recognize for example Jaffa, Ashdod and Bersheeba to be a part of Israel and claim that these places are occupied Palestinian territory. “

= no document of recognition. No document showing a legal agreement between Israel and the State of Palestine.

Israel itself hasn’t agreed to ANY final borders

“You can also use any official UN document”

Israel itself hasn’t agreed to ANY final borders so the Question of Palestine remains un-answered so there is no official UN document in that respect.

The ‘question’ reverts back to the 1949 Armistice Agreements stating that “the Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary”

There is this official UN document of the 31st August 1949 to Conciliation Commission revealing Israel’s A) intention to possess all the non-Israeli territories it occupied by 1949. B) It’s admission, by stating it’s intention, that the territories not recognized as Israeli C) It’s admission, by stating it’s intention, that no part of Syria (the Golan) was Israeli. D) It’s admission, by stating it’s intention relating only to the surrounding Arab states, that there would be no form of self determination by the Palestinians (read Deuteronomy 20:15), E) Via the final paragraph, if Israel didn’t get it’s way, it would not respect the recognized Sovereign integrity of the Arab states and their right to live in peacehttps://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/C96E0252E7710BCE85256D95006BC157

The official reply https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/A6590B9A251FC2AC85256D95006C45EF emphatically dismisses the notion, referring Israel back to the armistice agreements, specifically “2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question”

// Talknic: “They trashed it.” //

“In that case they also trashed your position”

That’s odd. Aside from the Holocaust I consider Israel as it is to be the worst thing to have happen for Jews. Polarizing Jewish folk against each other. Those who believe the Zionist bullsh*t and those who believe in justice and the basic common sense tenets of Judaism.

While Israel is in the UN and is a State it exists and should be bought before the law. While Israel has the US Veto vote on its side the US prevents Israel from being booted out of the UN. So we’re stuck with it.

” But the question remains, why you don’t make a case for it since it seems all to be about regocnition for you. Why don’t you argue that Israel can’t be recognized at all, because its proclamation violated SEC RES 46? And what’s your position about non recognition, because of non compliace with 194?”

To the contrary. Every single resolution that supports the two state solution based on 67 lines inherently recognizes Ashdod to be in Israel and not in occupied Palestinian territory. I have to say that it is actually cracy to claim that the majority of UN members that recognize Israel hold the position that Ashdod is occupied territory.

Talknic: “There is this official UN document … ”

Everything from back then has been “trashed”.

Talknic: “The reality is it has already been recognized!”

And you don’t want to challenge Israel’s recognition in general, we allready noticed that very well. No matter how often you want to make sure that everybody knows how injust you think its establishment was. I call that post facto Zionism.

Let me explain more clearly:
Take all the 00:01s, the disquisitions about intra-Zionist differences among the bandits, the angels dancing on the tip of a pin, all the committees, all the collaborators, everything,
roll them all up
and shove them.

It’s all worthless as long as the Palestinian people, in a way that will appear to its masses as entirely just and representative and excluding the invader, has not spoken. No justice, no peace.

Meanwhile, you are performing Zionist propaganda by legitimizing the pirate entity. Period.

Talknic: “Israel didn’t exist before 00:01 may 15th 1948. You can point the finger at the Zionist movement/Jewish Agency/Jewish terrorist gangs prior to that exact time”.

“Sure, just don’t point the finger at the Goverment of Israel which gave the territory back when it found out that it was stolen by the people that became the Goverment of Israel. ROFL.”

That’s precisely it. The Jewish Agency & Zionist Federation’s legal team weren’t idiots. Any legal person worth their salt knows a State or person can’t be prosecuted for crimes prior to their existence.

Clever people are not always nice or honest and amongst the legal fraternity there are always those who simply relish the challenge of exploiting legal aspects that enable them or their client to do whatever they wish and get away with it, ethics and/or morality simply aren’t of concern

“Seriously how dd Israel acquire that territory that was not illegaly acquired by it? Receiving of stolen property? Fencing?”

The way all propaganda and criminal schemes get away things. Thru the rest of the world being way behind the eight ball and in this instance granting recognition, which under law is irrevocable. Another point the Zionist legal advisers would have been quite ware of. Only the citizens of the state can decide, ironically by a plebiscite or referendum, to disband the state or cede territory or rights to another entity. In effect what we have been saying should have been the case with Palestine.

The law might be in force, but in effect only after it has been discovered to have been broken, if it has been broken. While a decision is being made on the latter, the ball is purposefully kept in the air. A shining example are the so called peace talks or; the time spent arguing over “all” or “the” in UNSC res 242 to keep what was an inevitable resolution being adopted for as long as possible while while consolidating as much as possible of what became illegal facts on the ground. Subsequent UNSC resolutions make it perfectly clear what was meant by UNSC res 242. The argument over “all” and “the” was bullsh*t!

Know who you’re dealing with. The Zionist Federation have always been thinking decades ahead, it’s an essential requirement of the enterprise. By 1948 they’d had over half a century of practicing their craft. Slowly putting things in place, making promises they knew they’d never keep, massaging the message, knowing all the while State governments/Presidents/Prime Ministers et al come and go in a relative blink of an eye and; while you wait, there’s still plenty to do. It’s been 24/365.25 since 1987. Governments sleep. Zionism hasn’t.

Opposition is only a temporary set back and an alternative plan and or person are always readilly groomed and waiting in the wings. Look at how new worms suddenly appearing from out of the wood work when there’s a new POTUS

The declaration of Israeli statehood was planned down to the exact 60 seconds after the Mandate protecting Palestine ended. One minute to declare statehood, while already being in control of territory the Israeli Government readily admitted on May 22nd 1948 was “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

Plan Dalet was a crime a crime for which the State of Israel could not be prosecuted while at the same time preventing the Palestinians from declaring an equivalent even had they wanted to declare independent statehood because they simply weren’t in control of all their remaining territories or independent of all others.

“To the contrary. Every single resolution that supports the two state solution based on 67 lines inherently recognizes Ashdod to be in Israel and not in occupied Palestinian territory. “

Start putting them up.

Like the ICJ opinion on the wall, you’ll likely find they’re based on the Palestinian Declaration of Statehood via the borders it is willing to accept. Palestine framed the question to the ICJ based on the Palestinian declaration which ceded territories to Israel, therefore the court could reflect, in its opinion, the ceded territories were Israeli. Bear in mind if you try going down that path, it was only an ICJ opinion, not a ruling.

Israel has yet to accept that situation so there is answer yet to the Question of Palestine. There is no agreement! The rest of the world acknowledges what the Palestinians have ceded. NOT what Israel accepts because Israel hasn’t accepted! The only thing Israel has actually accepted are the territories it proclaimed in its plea for recognition

“I have to say that it is actually cracy to claim that the majority of UN members that recognize Israel hold the position that Ashdod is occupied territory”

Confirmed by the Armistice Agreements specifically “2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question”

I don’t really mind, even tho I spit chips every now and then. I know we’re actually in the same boat, different paddles. It helps me refine/hone different points and find different ways of putting forward a cohesive argument

Let me explain more clearly:
Take all the 00:01s, the disquisitions about intra-Zionist differences among the bandits, the angels dancing on the tip of a pin, all the committees, all the collaborators, everything,
roll them all up
and shove them”

Great explanation.

“It’s all worthless as long as the Palestinian people, in a way that will appear to its masses as entirely just and representative and excluding the invader, has not spoken. No justice, no peace.”

I agree. I said it 2012.

“Meanwhile, you are performing Zionist propaganda by legitimizing the pirate entity. Period”

By arguing against it. Interesting theory. I argue against it on behalf of Palestinians and Jews BTW. The establishment of the State of Israel was another in a long list of missed opportunities for peace and for Jewish folk who could have taken those opportunities had they wished http://wp.me/pDB7k-pE

The establishment of the State of Israel was another in a long list of missed opportunities for peace and for Jewish folk who could have taken those opportunities had they wished, without the need for colonization or dispossessing anyone http://wp.me/pDB7k-pE

Just have some pre state actors or precessor state illegaly acquire territory, then let them proclaim a new state on it and now as its Goverment inherently or officially declare that the territory is now the new state’s territory and, voila, the state’s territory’s was never illegaly acquired by the newly created state. It just fell legally into its hands..ROFL.

“It’s all worthless as long as the Palestinian people, in a way that will appear to its masses as entirely just and representative and excluding the invader, has not spoken. No justice, no peace.”

I agree. I said it 2012.

Bullshit. “Inadmissible” means exactly inadmissible. Either it is inadmissible and the presence of even a single Zionist invader anywhere in Palestine cannot be condoned, or you condone it and to you it is admissible, There is no third way in logic.

Repeat: logic does not allow one thing at the same time as its diametrical contrary. Like
a) inadmissibility of colonial presence anywhere without explicit permission of the owners and
non-a) colonial presence without explicit permission of the owners.

“Meanwhile, you are performing Zionist propaganda by legitimizing the pirate entity. Period”
By arguing against it. Interesting theory. I argue against it on behalf of Palestinians and Jews BTW.

So you are not “arguing against it”: apart the fact that religion plays no role here and the invaders are historically non-religious, the only “Jews” of interest here are Palestinians of Jewish ancestry as of the start of Zionist invasion. You are arguing for keeping invaders and offspring thereof in Palestine without permission from the owners.

The establishment of the State of Israel was another in a long list of missed opportunities for peace

It’s such a peaceful thing to get invaded yet again, this time though by not only the bloody English colonizer but also the barbarians he brings to replace you on your own soil. Yeah.

and for Jewish folk who could have taken those opportunities had they wished

The opportunity was that of establishing a colonial government as they wished, in a place they had no right to be in, and they took it.
Or they could have stayed in their own places in their own countries. Again, no 3rd way in logic.

Except for long-time Palestinian Jews, who are the only “Jewish folk” of relevance when talking about Palestine, period.

” .. “Inadmissible” means exactly inadmissible. Either it is inadmissible and the presence of even a single Zionist invader anywhere in Palestine cannot be condoned, or you condone it and to you it is admissible,”

Correct and I’ve never condoned it. I can explain however why Israel can’t be indicted for crimes committed before it existed.

Answer this: Of the people who terrorized and dispossessed non-Jews prior to the recognition of the State of Israel, who of them can be prosecuted? Who of them can be tried for their crimes against humanity? Who of them can be tried for their acts of terrorism? Who of them can be sued? Who of them can be made to pay compensation? Who of them is going to revert the situation to pre WW2? Who of them will be brought to justice? I’ll tell you NONE! NO ONE! They don’t exist. They’re dead. D – E – A – D … dead! The Stern Gang, Haganah, et al simply no longer exist

Justice only belongs in the past once it has been delivered. The past can only tell us, by their statements and actions, who the perpetrators were so we can know in which direction justice might lay and to whom it can be delivered. Clearly legally, morally, ethically, financially and spiritually it is to Palestine.

If the perpetrators no longer exist one can only look at what does exist and what can be done towards bringing justice about. Whether we like it or not, legal or illegal, the State of Israel exists. But it cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed before it existed. It’s a simple fact of law, applicable to all, not just Israel. Evil people exploited it creating the situation as it is today. They’re long gone.

” There is no third way in logic.”

I hate to have to point this out, but YOU are trying to make a third way. 1) The pre-Israeli state Zionist players no longer exist. 2) The State of Israel, illegal or not, exists. 3) your notions

“Repeat: logic does not allow one thing at the same time as its diametrical contrary. Like
a) inadmissibility of colonial presence anywhere without explicit permission of the owners and
non-a) colonial presence without explicit permission of the owners.”

I agree. BTW Do you really think the main players legal teams were not and are not now aware of the laws and conventions? Let’s say there was a plebiscite, do you really think the Zionist enterprise would give a stuff? Get real!

Meanwhile, Palestine has already agreed under the leadership of Arafat, to cede some 78% of their territories to Israel for Peace. Not my doing.

“So you are not “arguing against it””

Nonsense. My entire output on the subject is on the illegitimacy of the the Zionist Federation’s colonization of Palestine.

” apart the fact that religion plays no role here and the invaders are historically non-religious, the only “Jews” of interest here are Palestinians of Jewish ancestry as of the start of Zionist invasion.”

“You are arguing for keeping invaders and offspring thereof in Palestine without permission from the owners.”

No. I am pointing out the situation as it stands. The Palestinians under the leadership of Arafat, declared statehood, ceding 78% of their rightful territories to the State of Israel. You wish it didn’t happen, but it did! I didn’t do it.

“the opportunity was that of establishing a colonial government..”

It wasn’t in fact for 2,000 years. It wasn’t in fact under the LoN Mandate Article 7. It wasn’t in ANY of the missed opportunities I mentioned until Israel declared, thereby missing another opportunity. You’re huffing and puffing at straw dude

“Except for long-time Palestinian Jews, who are the only “Jewish folk” of relevance when talking about Palestine, period.”

“Just have some pre state actors or precessor state illegaly acquire territory, then let them proclaim a new state on it and now as its Goverment inherently or officially declare that the territory is now the new state’s territory and, voila, the state’s territory’s was never illegaly acquired by the newly created state. “

Correct from a legal POV. Also immoral, unethical, planned for from 1897, long before the Holocaust, against the basic tenets of Judaism, targeting not only Palestine but also specifically poor Jews for loans, specifically at interest on condition they put themselves on the front lines of the colonial conquest. If there is such a thing it surely qualifies as evil

” It just fell legally into its hands.”

If you say so. I haven’t. What I have said is that a State/person, cannot be indicted for a crime committed before it existed. It can only be prosecuted for the crimes it has committed and that the Jewish Agency and Zionist Federation legal teams would surely have been aware

Unless the State of Israel is dismantled, the Zio invader population is removed, and a lot of Israeli and international Zios stand trial under international anti-genocide law at the ICC, the international anti-genocide legal regime is a joke. If the international anti-genocide legal regime, which addresses some of the most heinous of crimes, is a joke, all international law is undermined.

To borrow a phrase, international law and the State of Israel cannot exist in the same universe. One could call it a legal exclusion principle.

“.. the presence of even a single Zionist invader anywhere in Palestine cannot be condoned, or you condone it and to you it is admissible,”

Correct and I’ve never condoned it. I can explain however why Israel can’t be indicted for crimes committed before it existed.

My a$$. You defend the ***unauthorized presence*** of invaders on Palestinian territory.
Do you really want us to start believing that you are not pretending, but genuinely unable to read? “Presence”. Look up the words . It’s exactly what you have been advocating since you started writing here. The crimes committed before the existence of the pirate entity are not nobody’s main problem.

Answer this: Of the people who terrorized and dispossessed non-Jews prior to the recognition of the State of Israel, who of them can be prosecuted? Who of them can be tried for their crimes
…If the perpetrators no longer exist…

Who gives a rat’s ass who they were and what they called or still call themselves? The unauthorized presence of invaders and squatters is the problem. Current. There are millions of these perpetrators on Palestinian soil.

Let’s say there was a plebiscite, do you really think the Zionist enterprise would give a stuff?

So, you expect the Zionists to get out by their own will, just because you plead well? Now that’s totally insane. Or are you suggesting that nothing should be done because the only language they will understand is force?

To sum up your philosophy, it is the same as that used earlier to recommend not doing anything against slavery, or against any occupation: the initial culprits are long dead, those who profit from the crime cannot be indicted, the invasion is established and recognized by all respectable colonial powers and their puppets, and and anyway the invaders won’t give up when asked nicely. So you spit fire and brimstone… not against the fact of the occupation, but its “excesses”.

Looks like the exact contrary of condemning the violation of the right to self-determination.

Also, with “Palestine has already agreed under the leadership of Arafat , to cede some 78% of their territories to Israel for Peace” you replace a representative plebiscite with the white flag of the Oslo-whipped gravedigger of the resistance, Arafat who decided to do what the US told him, come place himself under the direct control of the enemy and paralyze all resistance that meant business. Without going into discussion of this or that leader’s character –how is anyone supposed to replace a representative plebiscite?

Finally we have a full exposure of what you have been defending all the time –opposition to some excesses of the Zionists and colonial powers, condemnation of the “original sin”, but full acceptance of the principle of the Zionists’ criminal invasion –and opposition to the Palestinians’ recovering their full rights over their own territory. We’ll have to remember that.

.““Presence”. Look up the words . It’s exactly what you have been advocating since you started writing here”

Strange. I have been advocating the need for a referendum/plebescite for over 5 years here at MW. I’ve shown you where. The links are still there for all to read.

I’ve even described how the US was instrumental in large part for the notion of a plebiscite passing into Customary International Law. (the right to self determination)

“Who gives a rat’s ass who they were and what they called or still call themselves? The unauthorized presence of invaders and squatters is the problem. Current. There are millions of these perpetrators on Palestinian soil.”

You flatly refuse to answer a reasonable and reasonably put question. Thanks for the debate. In respect to the unauthorised presence of invaders and squatters, I agree. I have been saying as much since I first posted on MW and a long time prior. Banned from The Guardian for challenging the ZioBots. Same for WikI/Pedia banned for daring to challenge the ZioBot infested re-writing of history

// Let’s say there was a plebiscite, do you really think the Zionist enterprise would give a stuff? //

“So, you expect the Zionists to get out by their own will, just because you plead well? “

How you distilled that from what was written is nothing short of incredible. The Zionist enterprise couldn’t give a rat’s rrrrs about a plebiscite. They don’t give a rat’s rrrrs about International Law, the UN Charter or the most basic tenets of Judaism. A plebiscite means nothing to them. You’re not dealing with an organization that cares what the Palestinians want.

Now that’s totally insane. “

Indeed it is and it’s all your own making. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. The Zionist Movement’s state will likely kick the shit out of the china shop rather than back down on anything. It’s the Zionist Movement at the heart of the matter and it doesn’t have a conscience

“Or are you suggesting that nothing should be done because the only language they will understand is force?”

They understand a lot more than force. The Zionist Movement have had over a century establishing networks, strategies, legal arguments, grooming people to put in the right places at the right time with the right backing to influence outcomes to suit their thieving objectives.

I’ve just painstakingly tried explained why Israel cannot be prosecuted for crimes before its establishment and how they used that fact to Israewl’s advantage. They duped the world into recognizing Israel while it was at war. Duped into recognizing Israel while it was at war in territory outside of the borders it announced in its plea for recognition. They were able to get Israel admitted to the UN while it was at war in other folks territories. Its leaders stated it would adhere to International Law. They lied. Force is only one aspect.

“Finally we have a full exposure of what you have been defending all the time ..”

Why should I? It’s you who inherenty claims that the majority of states that recognize Israel don’t see Ashod to be an Israeli port, but occupied territory. Recognition is not only done through explicit recognitions documents, but also through documented state practice: If a state who recognizes Israel behaves according to Israel’s regulations regarding the port of Ashod that is an implicit recognition. Same goes for state contracts with Israel that implicetly deal with Asdhod as an Israeli port.

Talknic: “Bear in mind if you try going down that path, it was only an ICJ opinion, not a ruling.”

Another Hasbara fake argument.. An ICJ advisory opinion has the same legal effect as a ruling which would be based on the very same interpretation of international law by the very same institution. The advisory opinion is in fact the UN’s interpretation of international law; because the ICJ is the UN’s principal judicial organ.

Talknic: “The only thing Israel has actually accepted are the territories it proclaimed in its plea for recognition”.

So Israel has not accepted Ashod to be a part of Israel. ROFL. Are we really talking about the same reality?

“Israel said it May 22nd 1948 …”

That was trashed, too.

Have you ever considered Israel’s “Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordinance” or its “Proclamation No. 1 of the Israel Defense Forces Government in the Land of Israel”, both of September 48? Or any of ts legal or political practices which indicate that it has incorporated these territories into the State of Israel? Oh no, Talknic wants us to prove the bleeding obvious.

Talknic: “Even challenging it, Israel still exists. You cannot get away from that fact. Like it or not, that IS the situation. It isn’t a dream or a hope or a wish. It’s the reality!”

Doesn’ have to be the reality. States or its regimes don’t necesseraly exist forever. Recognitions can be withdrawn and some have been in the case of Israel. But that’s neither your nor a Zionist’s starting point, isn’t it?

Talknic:”It has nothing to do with me.”

It has. Arguing for Israel’s fait accomplies and denying its responsibility for its pre state actors is genuinly Zionist.

Talknic: ” I know we’re actually in the same boat, different paddles”

No, we are definitely NOT in the same boat..

Correct from a legal POV … What I have said is that a State/person, cannot be indicted for a crime committed before it existed.”

Yeah right, the GoI is not responsible for what it did, before it declared itself to be the GoI. The “Provisional State’s Council” is not responsible for the actions it commited when it was called the “People’s Council” and representing (according to its own words) every Jew and every Zionist movement in Palestine.

Let’s recapitulate. According to you not even Israel recognizes Ashdod to be part of Israel and when non state actors illegaly acquire territory and then proclaim a state and create its goverment the very same goverment can claim that the state’s territory was no illegaly aqcuired, because the illegal acquisition was before the proclamation. ROFL.

shapiro, the “former” obama ambassador, is likening himself to a rat jumping ship since his former employer’s treasonous actions are slowly but inexorably seeping onto the lips and front pages of the msm. shapiro only preys[sic] that his name is not associated with obama’s attempt to ingiltrate and corrupt recent elections there in israel not to confuse with those here for which obama and his possee will soon swing- alluah ahkbar!

The real miracle is the Lobby’s ability to control U.S. policy toward Palestine. The real gift is the aid the U.S. gives to Israel. A “sacred” gift, according to Pelosi. How big is this gift? Hint: more than you think:

“This miracle, this gift, this jewel,
that we in our day and age after centuries of exile,
get to experience,
which is a sovereign state of the Jewish people,
in the historic homeland of the Jewish people.”

Yeah, yeah, we get it:

“This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle…/… This precious stone set in the silver sea,…/…This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.”

“This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings,
Fear’d by their breed and famous by their birth,
Renowned for their deeds as far from home,
For Christian service and true chivalry,
As is the sepulchre in stubborn Jewry,
Of the world’s ransom, blessed Mary’s Son,
This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land,
Dear for her reputation through the world,
Is now leased out, I die pronouncing it,
Like to a tenement or pelting farm:
England, bound in with the triumphant sea
Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege
Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame,
With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds:
That England, that was wont to conquer others,
Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
Ah, would the scandal vanish with my life,
How happy then were my ensuing death!”

Strange. If our Jewish fellows were indeed exiled, they were free to return from at least the end of the Roman era. They could have attained legitimate citizenship, bought land and settled anywhere in the Jewish People’s alleged historical homeland.

There have been some very good/well reviewed books on the ‘second exile’ recently, most notably Wiliam Horbury’s ‘Jewish War in the time of Trajan and Hadrian’. I think that it should now be clear that Jews were subject to a military exclusion zone round Jerusalem for some time, that the wider area, traditional Judaea, became sparsely populated, perhaps with a non-Jewish majority but still with a Jewish presence, and that Galilee became the major Jewish centre, probably quite homogeneous and prosperous, able to afford impressive synagogue buildings, Jews remaining an important presence in the wider Roman and Persian worlds, with islands of anti-Semitism.
At least there was one island, Cyprus, which declared that Jewish immigration was forbidden because of atrocities during that period of war. Even shipwrecked Jews were threatened with the death penalty. This remarkable detail is recorded, Horbury notes, by Dio Cassius around 100 years after the end of Hadrian’s war, but perhaps the Cypriot bark was worse than the bite because there are Jewish inscriptions from Cyprus in Dio’s time.

The first and second exiles are key elements on a lot of contemporary Jewish worship. What I find interesting is that there were invasions both from East and West. Ha eretz, the land, is actually an invasion route from at least 3 directions, which is why the Temple was sacked twice. The Jewish insistence on matrilineage guarantees chaos every so often. There aren’t enough people to compete with the economic capacity of the Nile Valley or Anatolia or Mesopotamia. That is what the history says.
The exiles were a result of the location on an invasion route.

Zionism is an attempt to defy history and geography . Unfortunately it hasn’t been possible to retain Jewish ethics but hey, that’s showbiz.

I don’t think that enough attention is paid to the invasion route aspect. Switzerland is not on an invasion route and has been independent since the 13th century.

IMHO what is often overlooked in the ongoing farce which is Zionist Israel is the issue of a rapidly increasing population versus the actual acreage available to accommodate that population in the future. It is not just a question of the growth in the native Palestinian population despite the continuing increasingly desperate attempts by what is now the majority of Jewish politicians to “encourage ” them to leave and go to a “proper” Arab country (whether or not that country wants them or will accept them) It is also a question of the rapid growth in the non birth controlled and welfare dependant Ultra Orthodox Jewish community. Some estimates show Israel having a population of between 20 – 30 million in around 30- 40 years time with a high proportion of that being Haredim. And as we keep hearing and it keeps making us want to cry Israel is such a tiny little country surrounded by etc etc (sob). The simple fact is that without invasion and take over of neighbouring acreage (the Sinai,South Lebanon,Southern Syria and as a last desperate measure Eastern Jordan) all of which would be untenable even if initially achievable the existing acreage will not be able to sustain the Israeli Jewish population without guess what a specific large scale ethnic cleansing or alternative diminution of the remaining native Palestinian Arab population.

This simply reinforces the ultimate reality of what Israel is and always has been – an artificial colony populated by brainwashed Zionist clones who have no interest in the future , only the biblical past.

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.